Mason v Keeling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1305
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Questioned, Cox v. Burbidge, 1860, 13 C. B. N. S. 440. Followed, Sanders v. Teape, 1884, 51 L. T. 264.
[606] mason vers. keeling. 1*^2^ y J( Intr. Hill. 11 Will. 3, Hot 341, B. R. [Questioned, Cox v. Burbidge, 1860, 13 C. B. N. S. 440. Followed, Sanders v. Teape, 1884, 51 L. T. 264.] S. C. 12 Mod. 332. An action will not lie against a man for mischief done by his dog, unless he knew that he had done mischief before or was of a mischievous nature. Though the dog was a mongrel mastiff and permitted to go at large without a muzzle. In an action upon the case the plaintiff declared against the defendant, for that quod ille quendam canem molossum, Anglice a mongril mastiff, valde ferocem custodivit et retinuit et canem ilium in communi platea vocata Water-Street in, &c. ore ejusdem canis adtunc minime ligato existente, Anglice not musled, libere et ad largum ire permisit, idem canis pro defectu debitae curae et custodiae ipsius the defendant ipsum the plaintiff adtunc per communem plateam apud, &c. circa legitima negotia sua transeuntem furiose et violenter impetivit, et ipsum the plaintiff adtunc et ibidem graviter momordit et vulneravit, et suram, Anglice the calf, cruris sinistri ipsius the plaintiff graviter momordit et vulneravit, &c. To which declaration the defendant demurred. And the exception taken to this declaration by the defendant's counsel was, that the plaintiff has not shewn that the defendant knew that this dog was valde ferox ; without which knowledge he shall not be answerable for any injury, that he of a sudden, and unknown to the defendant, did to the plaintiff. And it was argued three times severally by Mr. Northey, Darnall King's Serjeant, and Mr. Peere Williams, for the plaintiff; and by Mr. Boult, Sir Bartholomew Shower, and Mr. Raymond, for the defendant. And the counsel argued for the plaintiff, that though in such actions as this here, it has been held necessary in many cases to say sciens in the declaration ; yet where the fact has 1306 MICH. TEEM, 12 WILL. 3 11D.8AYM.607. such circumstances as this hath, the omitting of sciens will not vitiate the declaration. For in this case the dog is shewn to be valde ferox; and then to permit such a dog to go at large in the highway, is a common nuisance; and then whosoever receives any particular prejudice or damage shall have an action 1 Ventr. 295. 3 Keb. 650. A coachman driving a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Draper v Hodder
...regarding the propensity of the individual animal whose activities have given rise to the institution of legal proceedings. Thus in Mason v. Keeling (1700 12 Modern Reports 332, at page 335) Chief Justice Holt said; "In case a dog bites pigs, which almost all dogs do, a 'scienter' is necess......
-
Searle v Wallbank
...that may be, the forensic protest of the plaintiff's counsel did not deflect the current of authority. The report of Mason v. Keeling in 1 Ld. Raym. 606 (at p. 608) attributes to Holt C.J. and Turton J. a dictum which I believe to have been then, and to have remained ever since, a correct ......
- State Government Insurance Commission (Sa) v Trigwell
- McQuaker v Goddard